About your Search

20121006
20121014
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10 (some duplicates have been removed)
policy and the environment and role of large-scale asset purchases. before doing so let me note the usual disclaimer. the thoughts i'm about to give you are my own. do not necessarily reflect the views of others on the fomc. there's a considerable diversity of views within the fomc and within -- commong economists more generally about the use of large-scale asset purchases and other unconventional policy tools. this is both inevitable and healthy given the unprecedented circumstances in which we find ourselves. let me be clear on where i stand. i support the committee's decision of last month, namely to initiate purchases of mortgaged backed securities at a rate of $40 billion a month. in tandem with the ongoing maturity extension program of treasury securities, and to plant a continue those purchases if the committee does not observe a substantial improvement in the waiver market outlook. given where we are, given what we know, i firmly believe that this was the right decision. in my comments today i'm only going to briefly review the case for taking that action as that ground has been w
bank and under the current regulatory environment, as bank took a look at his business plan and said here is your problem -- you are asset rich and cash poor. he said i know that, if i had the cash it would not be here for a loan. he would have to over collateralize a loan by 150% under the current regulatory environment. i want him to be able to grow his business. it's a classic example of regulation killing jobs. we need to make sure we have the proper amount of legislation but not overregulation. my commercials talk about reducing spending, and powering our work force for training for jobs available and developing a comprehensive energy policy to put our people back to work, energy independence to protect our environment. >> 30 seconds to rebut. >> you have been running some of the most deceitful attack at the state has ever seen. don't try to pretend that has not been what's happening in that race. when your campaign was asked why you don't start talking about the issues, your campaign manager said it would be a senseless exercise. that's right. for linda mcmahon talking at the i
meeting of the mines? >> was driving recruiting in yemen is an economic and social environment that is breaking down. you have the breakdown of traditional tribal and religious institutions. you have massive instability of the a government. you have an ecological crisis. a majority of yemenis are living on less than $60 a month. if you are 30 years old with a wife and three children and maybe our living on $60 a day and someone comes to your community that's cut off from the rest of the world and says if i can pay you $400 but you have to believe in jihad and carry this rifle, that's pra pretty good deal. whether those people get targeted as a result, that is an unfortunate reality. the trip is right now in yemen we don't have a good granular view of what groups, where tribal structures, what regions of the places where al qaeda has a lot of reach and influence. we have a general view from 12,000 feet above. you cannot fight this kind of war by remote control. you have to have the on the ground you. that does not mean we should send lots of troops or have the kind of interventi
and procedures where appropriate in light of the threat environment and whether they were properly implemented. the secretary has asked us to work as quickly and transparency as pot -- transparently as possible. this is a complicated review that will take time. we will be better able to assess the information we have. until then, it is an incomplete picture and, as a result, our answers today will be incomplete. we have always made clear we were given the best information we had at the time. for example, if any administration official, including any career official, were on television sunday, september 16, they would have said what ambassador rice said. the information she had at that point from the intelligence committee was the same that i had at that point. clearly, we know more today than we did after the attack. but we will continue consulting with you throughout this process. i would like to address the broader question that may be on your mind. why is the united states in benghazi when there are real dangers there? this question goes to the heart of america's role in the world. ambassad
in the economic environment, is the fundamental reason that central planning cannot work, even apart from the adverse implications of central planning for individual freedom. we use market institutions to allocate resources because doing so maximizes aggregate wealth. we don't use market institutions to allocate and reallocate resources in order to preserve jobs in any given industry. therefore, the structural unemployment that results from reductions in defense outlays is irrelevant and politically, even if it is highly relevant politically. to the extent that reductions in defense outlays reflect an improvement in international security environments, that improvement in yields an increase in national wealth in exactly the same sense that a reduction in crime does the same. while increased employment in a given economic sector or increased unemployment, rather, in a given economic sector is painful for those subjected to economic losses, it is not a loss for the economy as a whole, because the reallocation of resources in response to changes in relative prices increases the aggregate pro
the ballot measures in 34 states, abortion rights, same sex marriage, the environment, legalizing marijuana, everything is on these ballots so everybody has to not just do the candidates, they have to vote on the ballot issues. and by the way, on that little gender gap, do not worry, there is a genre gap. it's been there every time since 1980. and it is the voice -- we got the woman's vote but for so long they said they vote but all they do is vote according to men's pocketbook. no, that was wrong when i was taught it in my political science classes and it's very wrong now. women are voting their own interest on medicaid, family planning, reproductive rights. i could go on. and that measure -- when you hear that it's disappeared, don't believe that. it has not disappeared. it is the difference between men and women's votes and it's measureable. and it's based not on good looks but on positions on issues. and it will be there, it is there. and always when you hear all these polls, look at the combination of how many democrats they're putting in, how many young people, how many people are col
america and the world create an environment where whoever is in authority and power have to act or pay the price. >> i am optimistic. i do not think the american people will settle for anything less than success, and they are going to drive this debate. as business leaders, our job is to insure the business community is involved in the discussion. if they are, politicians will do the right thing. >> to you think american politicians will do what is needed? >> you will not find pessimist'' up here. we would not do what we do for a living. the problems we face can be solved. americans can be counted on to do the right thing after they have exhausted every other possibility. we would get it done. >> you can never go wrong ending on churchill. thank you for joining me. [applause] >> thank you all for joining us for conversations and power today, and a big thank-you to a keen observer on washington politics and the economy, as well who as a great moderator. and thank you to our panelists. we really appreciate you all being here. i would also like to again thank our sponsors at bloomberg gov
political environment. but at the same time, you spent years as the democratic party chair, in some ways, being the partisan chief of the party. what would you say to virginians that would convince them that when you go to washington, you'd be not partisan and not simply a loyal lieutenant in harry reid's army. >> i will tell you two things. i served with two presidents. i serve with president bush and president obama. we did not agree on everything. i worked closely on the bush administration on a number of issues that put virginia first. railroads are being built right now largely because of president bush and his secretary of transportation and our ability to work together. we worked with the bush administration in the aftermath of the shootings at virginia tech. i will always be a partner of the nine states, whoever the president is. i also have a track record of working across lines. first, here in richmond. second, as a republican -- as a governor with republican houses. we were the best-managed state in virginia. revested for business all years i was governor, forbes magazine. tho
will compete for the best talents. we have the best environment for that talent. >> energy and then campaign finance. >> you are looking at california right now. their massive increases in the costs. when consumers are paying for gasoline, they're not able to purchase their basic commodities every day. what is happening? governor brown is proposing a relaxation of regulation that impact energy industry. that is clearly a concession that regulation drives the costs of energy. we need to have the same focus of discussion in washington. what is happening in california can happen -- >> i heard about that happening in hawaii. >> if you have a stool with two legs, it will fall over. look at what the canadians did with their cash cow. we can do spending, taxes, and energy with our cash cow. >> tom, you think this will happen with the makeup of the government we have today? >> i think when people figure out there is a big chunk of change and there is a debate of people trying to protect entitlements and those trying to kill energy, who are you going to bet on? -- it will save as much as 50 cents per
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10 (some duplicates have been removed)